I don't think there can be much doubt that the majority of the three sponsorships originated from another party. But Der Spiegel added 2 + 2 and came up with a number that's far larger than 4. They took a reference to 'HH will arrange the additional funding' to mean Sheikh Mansour would pay the money. That's demonstrably incorrect. The far greater likelihood is that 'HH' was MBZ, not Sheikh Mansour, and the money originated from the Executive Council, not ADUG.
There's also evidence in the emails that we asked for the money to be paid as though it came from the sponsors. Der Spiegel took that as evidence of wrongdoing whereas it's far more likely that the EC sent the additional funding either directly to City or to ADUG, and we then asked them to change that to show that it came from the sponsors. So we did the right thing, which Der Spiegel presented as evidence of wrongdoing.
The problem is that the Der Spiegel "evidence" appears to be all UEFA has, so you can understand why they pursued this. If a bent copper tries to frame someone, the CPS won't carry out a forensic examination of the case; they'll simply examine whether, on the basis of the evidence that the police have submitted, there's a clear public interest in prosecution and a reasonable chance of success. We know Leterme was bent, allowing a PSG sponsorship far in excess of the value suggested by the experts he appointed, to go through. The Adjudicatory Chamber was the CPS equivalent and CAS should be the equivalent of a courtrooms, where a defence team can tear the prosecution's case to shreds for the first time.
So when you say "...they (UEFA) still proceeded..." and take that as evidence of a strong case, you fall into the same trap that anyone taking the Der Spiegel articles at face value, without context, fell into. You also forget that it's not really UEFA, as Ceferin is desperately trying to dissociate himself from this. We know who's behind this and they're not interested in truth or justice.
Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
Very good point George. UEFA stands in the way of the Cartel getting their European Super League. They'd be equally happy to see us take UEFA down as to see UEFA take us down. So they see it as a win-win but some of them are going to end up as the casualties here.Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
Exactly UEFA are collateral damage , the Cartel are in a win - win situation , particularly if none of their involvement comes out in the hearing.Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
The above bit has been mentioned several times here - there surely must be something more to the UEFA side of things to make it credible.
It seems very strange.
Not going to happen, we all know it would be...10 things that could happen when City are found guilty.
That seems logical to me, but the words of others suggest I might be giving them too much credit
Fair point.
I think some of it is just that it is more difficult to imagine what else backs up the case. City don't seem to have just ignored the claims, so it's not unopposed.
Possibly but they have always seen themselves as above normal law ie special rules that they write for themselves. This hubris continues but I think they are quite happy to sacrifice UEFA and its officers then move on to form another Organisation that does as it is told.The above bit has been mentioned several times here - there surely must be something more to the UEFA side of things to make it credible.
It seems very strange.
That is an interesting argument. Do you think the panel, like Leterme etc would risk their reputation though and if UEFA have little grounds to punish us, and their arguments are baseless, would that also not make UEFA look corrupt. As you say it may depend on what is considered the lesser of the two evils.
I think this is an interesting point. Sometimes you need to see decisions in the right context and culture and that can be hard to understand and appreciate on the outside. Inside UEFA there are a lot of figures with a deep and well publicised level of hatred for City that distorts their sense of reality and gives way to a bizarre set of opinions - just look at the contradictory and hypocritical nonsense that comes out of Tabas’s mouth - for a senior official of a major football federation - would anyone consider his racist, xenophobic and slanderous accusations “fair, balanced and reasonable” ? Gill, Parry, Agnelli and Rummenigge may not make the same public outbursts but their hatred of City is no less than Tabas’s. In this context, there is a significant group of senior G14 officials within UEFA who want City gone, put in their place and cast out - how else do you explain the fact that they jumped on the Der Spiegel articles with such enthusiasm? Contrast that with the silence that met the news that Juventus were doubling its sponsorship received from Jeep? Maybe some of the G14 played a role in the Der Spiegel exclusive being published - I’ve said this before but I think Bayern’s dirty mitts are involved somewhere.
In this cauldron of hate, a rushed investigation is concluded with little or no input from the accused party and a severe punishment is prepared that wholly aligns with and gives the G14 and other UEFA senior officials what they want. How often do senior officials or senior politicians get smart, intelligent people to do crazy irrational things - just to please them? Was everyone at Enron stupid? I think not. Just watch the plethora of up-standing scientific and medical experts lining up each day to destroy their well earned professional reputations next to a lunatic President. What did Dr Birx say when her boss told his nation to ingest disinfectants? Answer nothing she just looked embarrassed.
It is clear that Ceferin despite his claims to have no knowledge of the case is at the very least uncomfortable with either the process or the punishment - and perhaps both. He went to extraordinary lengths (in public) to broker a settlement and as Head of UEFA he couldn’t have done more to distance himself from the process, the findings or the verdict. Ultimately we will find out at CAS, but I honestly think that the AC may have got itself worked up into a frenzy; in a culture of racially driven hatred against our owners and has been blind to the full facts of the case - in fact in the rushed process did they even gather the full facts - it would seem not. The AC seized on a few leaked emails to quickly - very quickly - create a narrative and cheered on by Tabas’s et al it assumed a guilty verdict. The facts upon which guilt was ascribed were never tested to any reasonable degree I.e. in a court the prosecution is challenged by the defence, but in the AC the defence were never called. This was a rushed kangaroo court that delivered a result that the majority of those with power inside UEFA longed for... but that doesn’t make it the right decision, it doesn’t make it a balanced decision and importantly in certain situations and in certain cultures bright, smart intelligent people do not always act with precision or integrity. Someone, has got this very badly wrong and looking at the two organisations ADUG and UEFA I think I know which one is acting with a clear head.
I like the positivity but I really can’t see this at all.
Neither side would want huge legal bills and City certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be dragged through the mud for about 18 months to potentially get off on a technicality at worst or a full exoneration at best when, before this, FFP had all but gone away.
Instead, owing to a big spoonful of stupidity we find ourselves in a tough position. We are going to CAS on appeal after being initially found guilty of breaking a set of rules we signed up to, even if those rules aren’t necessarily fair in bringing about sustainability for football clubs. Furthermore, if found in breach of those rules it seems we *could* be subject to huge scrutiny at domestic level owing to irregularities in our accounting practices.
The best analysis I’ve read came from Stefan from the 93:20 pod. To paraphrase (from memory) the UEFA punishment was eventually passed by a high standing, respectable judge that, like any high standing professional, wouldn’t want to have a decision overturned. Despite the media circus and the leaks that surrounded the investigation their eventual position can’t be completely groundless.
I really do hope we can get ourselves out of this mess, largely one of our making. We’re chucking loads of money at doing so by hiring the best we can get. I’m sure we’re confident but I’m also sure UEFA are reasonably confident too because you can bet they’re going to be represented by a quality set of lawyers and they’ve already passed one judgement through a highly qualified judge.
There can be no guarantees with this sort of thing. I feel we just have to hope for the best, rather than expect it.
NZBlue's point is another excellent one. Ceferin is between a rock and a hard place. CAS is his get-out, whereby he can say that UEFA has done everything it can but CAS let them down. I'd even say it's quite plausible that he gave the nod to the CFCB to confirm the punishment, knowing we'd go to CAS and UEFA would get knocked back. The question is whether City would see it as sufficient vindication to win on what people would see as a technicality.And also it was quite clear that City would go to CAS, which again makes you think the findings of the panel would be strong, knowing they would be picked apart at a later date.
PB and NZBlue have provided compelling arguments why this might not be the case. I suppose time will only tell.
Do you think, if City did win, there would be a case for defamation?NZBlue's point is another excellent one. Ceferin is between a rock and a hard place. CAS is his get-out, whereby he can say that UEFA has done everything it can but CAS let them down. I'd even say it's quite plausible that he gave the nod to the CFCB to confirm the punishment, knowing we'd go to CAS and UEFA would get knocked back. The question is whether City would see it as sufficient vindication to win on what people would see as a technicality.
So if we win at CAS, anyone think we will get money for damages to the clubs reputation? Could be quite useful in fighting ffp at present!